Whether it is lawful to take up arms in defense of religion

Furthermore, in all fairness, we must necessarily answer those who hold that
the church ought not to be defended by arms. According to them, it's no great
mystery why God forbade in the law that the altar should be made or adorned
with the help of any tool of iron. (Deut. 27:5) In like manner, at the building
of the Solomon's temple, no sound of axe or hammer, nor other tools of iron was
heard. (1 Ki. 6:7) From this they conclude that the church, which is the living
temple of the Lord, ought not to be defended by arms; yea, as if the stones of
the altar, and of the temple were hewed and taken out of the quarries without
any instrument of iron, which the text of the holy scripture clearly refutes.

This allegorical explanation, though attractive, is not convincing: we cite
the fourth chapter of the Book of Nehemiah, where we read that one part of the
people carried mortar, and another part stood ready with their weapons, that
some held in one hand their swords, and with the other carried the materials to
the workmen, for the rebuilding of the temple. By this means, they hoped to
prevent their enemies from ruining their work. We hold that the church is
neither advanced nor edified by these material weapons. However, by these arms
it is secured and preserved from the violence by enemies who will not by any
means endure the increase of it. Briefly, there has been an infinite number of
good kings and rulers (as histories testify) which by arms have maintained and
defended the service of God against pagans. Our opponents readily reply that
wars like these were allowable under the law; but since the time that grace has
been offered by Jesus Christ, who would not enter into Jerusalem mounted on a
brave horse, but meekly sitting on an ass, these "holy wars" are no
longer lawful. I answer first, and all agree with me in this, that our Savior
Christ, during all the time that He was in this world, took not on Him the
office of a judge or king; but rather of a private person, and a lawbreaker by
imputation of our transgressions; so that the fact that He did not carry nor
use arms is quite irrelevant.

But I would willingly demand of such exceptionalists, whether that they
think by the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh, that magistrates have lost
their right in the sword of authority? If so, Saint Paul contradicts them. He
says that the magistrates carry not the sword in vain, (Rom. 13:4) and did not
refuse their assistance and power against the violence of those who had
conspired his death. And if they agree with this, to what purpose do they think
the magistrates should bear the sword, if it be not to serve God who has
committed it to them, to defend the good and punish the bad? Can they do better
service than to preserve the church from the violence of the wicked, and to
deliver the flock of Christ from the swords of murderers? In addition, I would
ask whether they think that all use of arms is forbidden to Christians? If this
is their opinion, then I would know of them, why Christ did grant to the
centurion his request? (Mat. 8:5-13) And why did He praise him so highly? Why
does Saint John the Baptist command the men at arms to content themselves with
their pay, and not to use extortion to get more, rather than persuading them to
leave their calling? (Luke 3:14) Why did Saint Peter baptize Cornelius the
Centurion, who was the first-fruits of the Gentiles? And why didn't he advise
him to quit the army? (Acts 10:48)

Now, if to bear arms and to make war are lawful things, can there possibly
be found any war more just than that which is, by the command of the superior,
for the defence of the church, and the preservation of the faithful? Is there
any greater tyranny than that which is exercised over the soul? Can there be
imagined a war more commendable than that which suppresses such a tyranny? For
the last point, I would willingly know of these men, whether it be absolutely
prohibited Christians to make war upon any occasion whatsoever? If they say
that it is forbidden them, then why is it that the men at arms, captains and
centurions, who had no other occupation but the military, were always received
into the church? Why do the ancient Fathers and Christian historians make so
frequent mention of certain legions composed wholly of Christian soldiers, such
as that of Malta, so renowned for the victory which they obtained, and of that
of Thebes, of which Saint Mauritius was general, who suffered martyrdom,
together with all his troops, for the confessing of the name of Jesus Christ?
And if it be permitted to make war (as it may be they will confess) to keep the
limits and towns of a country, and to repulse an invading enemy, isn't it much
more reasonable to take arms to preserve and defend honest men, to suppress the
wicked, and to keep and defend the limits and bounds of the church, which is
the kingdom of Jesus Christ? If it were otherwise, to what purpose should Saint
John have foretold that the whore of Babylon shall be finally ruined by the ten
kings, whom she has bewitched? (Rev. 18) Furthermore, if we hold a contrary
opinion, what shall we say of the wars of Constantine, against Maxentius, and
Licimius, celebrated by so many public orations, and approved by the testimony
of an infinite number of learned men? What ought we to make of the many
crusades made by Christian rulers against the Turks and Saracens to conquer the
Holy Land, who had ought not to have had any other end in their designs but to
stop the enemy from ruining the temple of the land, and to restore the
integrity of His service into those countries?

Although the church cannot be advanced by arms, it may be justly defended by
the means of arms. I say further, that those that die in so holy a war are no
less the martyrs of Jesus Christ than their brethren who were put to death for
religion; nay, they who die in that war seem to have this disadvantage, that
with a free will and well knowing the risks into which they cast themselves,
notwithstanding, do courageously expose their lives to death and danger,
whereas the other do only not refuse the death that it it is necessary for them
to suffer. The Turks strive to advance their religion by force of arms, and if
they subdue a country, they immediately enforce the impieties of Mohammed, who,
in the Qu'ran, has so recommended arms, as they are not ashamed to say it is
the ready way to heaven, yet the Turks constrain no man in matter of
conscience. But he who is a much greater adversary to Christ and true religion,
with all those kings whom he has enchanted, opposes fire and faggots, to the
light of the gospel, tortures the Word of God, compelling by wracking and
torments, as much as in him lies, all men to become idolaters, and finally is
not ashamed to advance and maintain their faith and law by perfidious
disloyalty, and their traditions by continual treasons.

Now, on the contrary, those good rulers and magistrates are said properly to
defend themselves, when they surround and fortify, by all their means and
industry, the vine of Christ, already planted, to be planted in places where it
has not yet been, lest the wild boar of the forest should spoil or devour it.
They do this (I say) in covering with their buckler, and defending with their
sword, those who by the preaching of the gospel have been converted to true
religion, and in fortifying with their best ability, by strong walls, moats,
and ramparts, the temple of God built with living stones, until it have
attained the full height, despite all the furious assaults of it's enemies. We
have lengthened out this discourse thus far, to the end we might take away all
scruple concerning this question. Set, then, the estates, and all the officers
of a kingdom, or the greatest part of them, every one established in authority
by the people: know, that if they do not contain within his bounds (or at the
least, make every effort to do so) a king who seeks to corrupt the law of God,
or hinders it's reestablishment, that they offend grievously against the Lord,
with whom they have contracted covenants upon those conditions. Those of a
town, or of a province, making a portion of a kingdom, let them know also, that
they draw upon themselves the judgment of God if they do not drive impiety out
of their walls and confines if the king seek to bring it in, or if they be
wanting to preserve by all means, the pure doctrine of the Gospel, although for
the it's defence they suffer banishment for a time, or any other misery.
Finally, more private individuals must be informed that nothing can excuse them
if they obey any command that offends God, and yet they have no right nor
permission of any sort to take up arms by their private authority, unless it is
absolutely clear that they have extraordinary vocation to do so  which we
have confirmed by cogent testimonies drawn from scripture.